Author
Topic: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2] (Read 51943 times)

One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:

I would actually argue that you can make generalizations. That CPL's are problematic with ultra wide angle lenses is one I would agree with, even if there are exceptions. Everyone's tolerance is different but I would have probably dodged the dark band above the building in the first image. The CPL banding isn't bad but it's there. The skies in the second and fourth images don't work for me at all. To be clear, I'm not arguing that these are bad images or that there aren't benefits to your using a CPL for these shots; I'm saying that the generalization holds true.

One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:

I would actually argue that you can make generalizations. That CPL's are problematic with ultra wide angle lenses is one I would agree with, even if there are exceptions. Everyone's tolerance is different but I would have probably dodged the dark band above the building in the first image. The CPL banding isn't bad but it's there. The skies in the second and fourth images don't work for me at all. To be clear, I'm not arguing that these are bad images or that there aren't benefits to your using a CPL for these shots; I'm saying that the generalization holds true.

It's always nice to get fresh feedback on things your own eyes might prefer not to see, so thank you for that. Personally though, I'd work towards perfecting my use of the filter on my wide angle as opposed to doing away with it entirely.

Furthermore, IMHO primes are undesirable for landscapes in comparison to zooms; there are many situations where you can't change your FOV in landscape photography... zooms are indispensable in those scenarios.

I certainly hope that the past performances of Canon's ultra-wide zooms are not indicators for the quality of this rumored 14-24 But for now, I'm sticking to my Nikon 14-24 & Novoflex adapter, which gives stellar performance on my 5D Mark III. But, of course, this setup is impractical for event or fast-paced shooting scenarios.

Furthermore, IMHO primes are undesirable for landscapes in comparison to zooms; there are many situations where you can't change your FOV in landscape photography... zooms are indispensable in those scenarios.

I certainly hope that the past performances of Canon's ultra-wide zooms are not indicators for the quality of this rumored 14-24 But for now, I'm sticking to my Nikon 14-24 & Novoflex adapter, which gives stellar performance on my 5D Mark III. But, of course, this setup is impractical for event or fast-paced shooting scenarios.

This very well may be the case depending. I've seen some test reviewers out there posting comparison shots that would go towards proving that if they didn't botch the test/camera settings somehow. But for whatever it's worth The Digital Picture's ISO tool tells a different story. It shows the 14-24 being much much stronger overall on it's 24mm end in general, and shows significantly worse corner distortion on it's 14/16mm end than either the Canon 14 prime or the Canon 16-35, -and then it has equal if not worse CA depending on where you look. Has arguably sharper center frame than the 14mm prime but both are suffering from some CA which is to my eye, what is causing a lack a sharpness. There is definitely a strong case to be made in both directions. I've heard Nikon's 16-35 f/4 VR is even better still for IQ, but again, from the tool comparison above, my eyes slightly prefer the 16-35LII. I would go out on a limb and say, that 'if' the above tests are reliable in any way, I would slightly prefer the 16-35 even in terms of IQ on the 16mm end, and the 14-24 Nikon easily winning these tests on the 24mm end. The test show the 16-35 performance beginning to improve again on the 35mm end.

I don't have any idea how useful this tool is for determining the finest qualities of a lens, but it is showing their abilities in some detail and overall, I would have to say, that absolutely none of this minutia matters whatsoever for my purposes. Needless to say, I'm happy Canon is bringing a 14-24 but I probably won't be in the market for one unless it does something amazing, at the very least it will be fun to rent and play with from time to time in the far future.

Even in the The Digital Picture's comparison tool, the mid-frame performance of the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 exceeds that of the Canon 16-35 at f/8.0 (minus CA). Extreme corners, yes, do not clean up until f/4 or f/5.6 on the Nikon. This pretty much mirrors what I've found in my real-world tests, though I had a weaker copy of the 16-35 & two 17-40s; the former took f/11-f/16 to sharpen up on the edges, & the 17-40s never sharpened up on at least one edge until f/18-f/22, at which point diffraction made the entire image softer.

Jettatore

Even in the The Digital Picture's comparison tool, the mid-frame performance of the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 exceeds that of the Canon 16-35 at f/8.0 (minus CA). Extreme corners, yes, do not clean up until f/4 or f/5.6 on the Nikon. This pretty much mirrors what I've found in my real-world tests, though I had a weaker copy of the 16-35 & two 17-40s; the former took f/11-f/16 to sharpen up on the edges, & the 17-40s never sharpened up on at least one edge until f/18-f/22, at which point diffraction made the entire image softer.

Yeah the mid-frame I agree, it 'appears' sharper, but that comes at the cost of some extra distortion and harsh CA. So in post you would either be removing CA on the Nikon or adding a touch of sharpening to the Canon to get either/both to an even crisper level. The ends on the Nikon as you say might clean up some at higher f stops but the stronger levels of distortion remains and I'm still seeing strong purple CA fringe on the left side and a tinge of green/yellow fringe on the right sides in areas of contrast even stopped at f/5.6 in the corners

One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:

2 out of three that I spot checked have the polarization problem. My brain tells me that the sky is obviously one shade where the picture clearly have the too wide polarizer lopsided view. Nothing wrong with that if you like it, but I have one for my 16-35 and I never or rarely use it. I've seen enough shots with that effect that I recognize it instantly and it says 'amateurish' to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all trying to call you an amateur, but I use ND Grads to create deep blue and even skies (just like I expect and like I see.)

Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.

Before reading this I just talked to a Nikon guy who has shot weddings & events for a long time, he's doing macro work now. He was using the Nikon 24-70 and - of course - the 14-24. This is the typical Canon-Nikon conversation:

"What, Canon doesn't have that?" - "Well, they've got a 16-35" - "I thought Nikon and Canon lenses were comparable" - "No, but Canon will follow eventually, but Canon is more expensive" - "I always thought Nikon was more expensive" - "No, It's been a couple of years since you looked, now it's the other way around". Doh.